JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel for the writ appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 as well as Ms. T. Khro, learned State counsel, Nagaland, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. 2. The writ appellants were not parties either to WP(C) No.2(K)/2017 and WP(C) No.3(K)/2017, were disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 22.06.2017. This writ appeal is preferred only against the judgment and order rendered in WP(C) No.3(K)/2017. 3. In the writ appeal, the writ petitioner is arrayed as the respondent No.6 and the respondent No.6 in the writ petition, namely, M/s Eastern Associates, is arrayed as respondent No.7. In the writ petition, dasti notice was served on the respondent Nos.3 and 6, but they had not entered appearance to contest the proceeding. In view of the stand taken by Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in the appeal/writ petitioner in WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 and having regard to the fact that the respondent Nos.3 and 6 of the writ petition did not contest the writ proceeding as well as the condonation application filed to condone the delay in preferring the present writ appeal, there shall be no impediment for disposal of the present appeal without any notice to the respondent Nos.3 and 6 of the writ petition, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.3 and 7, respectively, in the writ appeal. 4. The respondent No.4, the State Mission Director, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan, Nagaland Education Mission Society, had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 17.08.2016 for strengthening 57 nos. of Government High Schools. The appellants had submitted their tender for Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima. 5. The appellants' bid was the lowest out of the 5 tenderers, who participated in respect of Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima. The tender committee recommended the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.3(K)/2017. However, approval was granted on 17.11.2016 followed by work order dated 25.11.2016 in favour of respondent No.6 in the writ petition (respondent No.7 in the present appeal). Being aggrieved, the appellants instituted a writ petition being WP(C) No.7962/2016 before the Principal Seat at Guwahati. The appellants had also instituted a writ petition being WP(C) No.7968/2016 in respect of Thinuovicha Memorial Government High School, Kohima, but the same is not the subject matter of this writ appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellants instituted a writ petition being WP(C) No.7962/2016 before the Principal Seat at Guwahati. The appellants had also instituted a writ petition being WP(C) No.7968/2016 in respect of Thinuovicha Memorial Government High School, Kohima, but the same is not the subject matter of this writ appeal. 6. On 02.01.2017, this Court in WP(C) No.7962/2016, had directed the respondent No.6 in the writ petition/respondent No.7 in the writ appeal not to proceed with the work of strengthening the Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima. 7. Wp(C) No.7962/2016 having been transferred to Kohima Bench was registered as WP(C) No.8(K)/2017. 8. On 16.01.2017, WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 was filed in Kohima Bench challenging the very same approval order dated 17.11.2016 and work order dated 25.11.2016 in respect of Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima. At paragraph 7 of WP(C) No.3(K)/2017, a reference is made to the writ petition filed by the present appellants as WP(C) No.7962/2017, which ought to have been reflected as WP(C) No.7962/2016. 9. While WP(C) No.8(K)/2017 was pending disposal, WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 came to be disposed of along with WP(C) No.2(K)/2017 by the impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.2017. 10. When there is a writ petition pending on the very same subject matter and about which a reference is also made, albeit with an incorrect number of the writ petition, it was necessary to dispose of both the writ petitions together. It appears that none of the learned counsel appearing in the case drew the attention of the Court regarding pendency of writ petition of the appellants, which was, in fact, filed earlier in point of time. 11. It is in this factual scenario, Mr. Khataniar submits that the impugned judgment and order may be interfered with so far as it relates to WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 and a direction be issued for analogous hearing of WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 and WP(C) No.8(K)/2017. 12. Ms. Khro has also submitted that it was only because of the fact that the learned Single Judge was not apprised of pendency of WP(C) No.8(K)/2017 that WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 was taken up for disposal in isolation. 13. In view of what has been noted above, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.2017 in respect of Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima forming subject matter of WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 is set aside and quashed. Both WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 and WP(C) No.8(K)/2017 shall be heard and disposed of analogously. 14. 13. In view of what has been noted above, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.2017 in respect of Government Higher Secondary School, Kohima forming subject matter of WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 is set aside and quashed. Both WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 and WP(C) No.8(K)/2017 shall be heard and disposed of analogously. 14. Registry of Kohima Bench will list WP(C) No.3(K)/2017 and WP(C) No.8(K)/2017 for orders on 27.09.2018, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the appearing parties. 15. With the above directions, the writ appeal stands allowed and disposed of.